While it is a positive step…

While it is a positive step for the government to propose that municipalities can veto water taking for bottling purposes within their jurisdictions, there is no logic in the plan to declare that the municipality veto does not apply to the taking of 379,000 litres or less per day.

Why 379,000 litres? Why not 50,000 litres, the volume where no permit to take water is required? Why not zero litres? After all, if a municipality is opposed to water being taken for bottling, it is more than likely opposed to any quantity being taken.

With one hand the government has proposed a municipality has veto power and with the other hand, it is allowing an arbitrarily high volume of water to be exempt so that a water bottler can still take drinking water that a community may require for its residents.

In the case of the Middlebrook well, located in Centre Wellington, the government’s own Tier 3 Water Study has identified that this community is at “significant risk”— the highest risk level—of having insufficient groundwater for future population expectations. Why then would the government propose that the community have no veto power over a water bottler taking 379,000 litres of water on a daily basis, a quantity equivalent to half the capacity of a current municipal well?

The government appears to be attempting to find a compromise between the wishes of the community and the wishes of a powerful foreign water taker that is constantly lobbying at Queen’s Park. However, there cannot be a compromise. The community is steadfast in opposing any water being pumped from Middlebrook for bottling.

I find it interesting that the government is proposing the council decision to veto or not veto the taking of water expires after five years. ERO 019-2422 goes into fine detail as to how a current council decision can be reversed. I would suggest that this detail could be perceived as a road map for a powerful water bottler to overturn a veto by encouraging like-minded individuals to seek election to future councils. Such a road map could lead to the actual corruption of council members.

Finally, in the case of the Middlebrook well situation, a Tier 3 Water Study was performed due to community pressure. In the five years the community has opposed any pumping many residents, including council, have educated themselves on the water quantity situation within Centre Wellington.

This situation is different to what may exist in most other municipalities. It is unlikely that other councils would have sufficient expertise and knowledge to make competent decisions concerning the municipal veto. Is the government prepared to undertake a Tier 3 Water Study in all communities where a water bottling company is seeking a permit to take water?

If not, how can a competent decision be made?